Eu Constitution

[Samoht]

After reading about the French and Dutch rejection of the EU Constitution I wanted to read the document in order to see for myself what they are trying to do. After a couple of searches I could not find the actual Constitution in English, only articles about the constitutional vote.

Do any of you know where I can locate it, a link would be great, and what are your thoughts on the document and its rejection?

[Eric Mathis]

Do any of you know where I can locate it, a link would be great, and what are your thoughts on the document and its rejection?

Try http://www.euabc.com/index.phtml?page_id=207

I'm very pleased that the French and Dutch scuttled the union. Decentralism is a safeguard against dictatorship. As Patrick Henry said, "This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility - and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves."

If the Europeans had wanted one big state running their continent, they wouldn't have fought so hard against Napoleon.

Edited June 2, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[LaVache]

Try http://www.euabc.com/index.phtml?page_id=207

I'm very pleased that the French and Dutch scuttled the union. Decentralism is a safeguard against dictatorship. As Patrick Henry said, "This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility - and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves."

If the Europeans had wanted one big state running their continent, they wouldn't have fought so hard against Napoleon.

Did the Dutch and French really scuttle the union to protect against possible abuses of power, or to keep their highly socialist countries from having to compete with countries that are more favorable to business? I heard some outcry against the "Polish Plumber" syndrome, against elitism, and because of the length/high specificity of the actual EU constitution, but don't remember the dictator issue being mentioned at all. Maybe they were implying it with their anti-elitism ideas, but I don't think that's what they really meant.

That said, the reasoning behind the anti-EU vote doesn't change the fact that there isn't an EU and most likely won't be one for some time.

[Eric Mathis]

Did the Dutch and French really scuttle the union to protect against possible abuses of power, or to keep their highly socialist countries from having to compete with countries that are more favorable to business? 

Actually, it doesn't bother me that people vote against bad proposals or bad candidates for the wrong reasons. In 1964 much of Goldwater's support in the South came from racists. Sure, it would be a great moral victory if every vote for less powerful government were cast for purely rational motives. But I'm not prepared to postpone the advent of freedom until that blessed day when all the world is in perfect philosophical agreement.

[LaVache]

Actually, it doesn't bother me that people vote against bad proposals or bad candidates for the wrong reasons.  In 1964 much of Goldwater's support in the South came from racists. Sure, it would be a great moral victory if every vote for less powerful government were cast for purely rational motives.  But I'm not prepared to postpone the advent of freedom until that blessed day when all the world is in perfect philosophical agreement.

While good results should always be always be recognized and enjoyed I don't think that you can completely remove the why from the what. Sure in the case of the EU constitution it was for the good that the French and Dutch voted it down, but those same people will be voting on many other things in their respective countries where their pro-socialist leanings will obviously not point them in the correct direction.

I didn't mean to take anything away from the defeat of the EU constitution, but when people cast favorable votes for unfavorable reasons it stands to reason that given the chance they will get the chance to vote for unfavorable things as well. One should just be aware that the advent of freedom can be repealed much easier if the people who voted for it did it for the wrong reasons. At least that's the way it looks to me.

[Eric Mathis]

I have already acknowledged that the “non” and “nee” votes in France and Holland may have been motivated in part by the wrong reasons. This, however, does not negate the sound arguments that were also at work in the defeat of the EU Constitution. Many citizens, left, right and center, are not comfortable about surrendering control of their national borders, about losing authority over their own military, about having various regulations imposed on them from a capital outside their homeland.

Some have described as “racist” the Dutch fear of having large numbers of Muslims from Turkey enter their country at will. So let me put the question to you, should Mexico with a population one-third that of the U.S. be admitted to our Union, with each of its citizens having the same power as a resident of Vermont to cast a vote for a Congressman, Senator and President? Sometimes, good fences make for good neighbors.

[Yes]

Here's a link to the text on the Internet.

A read of the Article I-3 exposes serious flaws with regard to the protection of individual rights and free trade.

For example:

The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

"Social Progress", in my opinion, implies a social model.

Also, it is the intent of this Constitution to transcend all local laws. That could be problematic.

I would like to see this severely flawed document, a treatise which appears to sponsor socialism, defeated.

[DavidOdden]

It's a fascinating document. You can have your cake and eat it too! For example, it says in Art. II-63-2. "In the fields of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular:....(d.) the prohibition of the reproductive cloning of human beings," and then in Art II-73: "The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected." Except for cloning, I guess. In the same section outlining rights of people it also articulates the right to be free from the ability to sell spare body parts: "(c.) the prohibition on making the human body and its parts as such a source of financial gain" -- this despite Art II-66 which asserts "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person" which I guess means "liberty, except where prohibited by law".

There's an interesting extension of the "right to" concept. In Art II-69 (I did not invent that) they say (emphasis added) "The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights," which on the face of it seems okay; but then Art II-74 states: "1. Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training. 2. This right includes the possibility to receive free compulsory education." If you put these together, you'll see that the "right to" means not just the freedom to act in some manner, but the entitlement to the means of so acting. Now back to Art II-69, that suggests to me that you have the right to collect a husband or wife at the State Spouse Bureau.

But once you get beyond that part, the rest of it is really scarey.

[LaVache]

I have already acknowledged that the “non” and “nee” votes in France and Holland may have been motivated in part by the wrong reasons. This, however, does not negate the sound arguments that were also at work in the defeat of the EU Constitution.  Many citizens, left, right and center, are not comfortable about surrendering control of their national borders, about losing authority over their own military, about having various regulations imposed on them from a capital outside their homeland. 

Some have described as “racist” the Dutch fear of having large numbers of Muslims from Turkey enter their country at will.  So let me put the question to you, should Mexico with a population one-third that of the U.S. be admitted to our Union, with each of its citizens having the same power as a resident of Vermont to cast a vote for a Congressman, Senator and President?  Sometimes, good fences make for good neighbors.

I definitely cede that their were many sound arguments against the EU, and that many voters took those to heart. I just hope that those well informed voters were in the majority.

It's extremely ironic that you chose Mexico for an example because of the whole fence thing, and how many Democrats want to let illegal aliens vote. America would also gain very little compared to Mexico, while the EU member states could all theoretically make some gains in security and possibly economy, if everything worked out well with the EU central government. Also, if we let Mexico join the Union they would no longer be neighbors, and even right now I wouldn't consider them especially good neighbors.

[Eric Mathis]

It's extremely ironic that you chose Mexico for an example because of the whole fence thing, and how many Democrats want to let illegal aliens vote.  America would also gain very little compared to Mexico, while the EU member states could all theoretically make some gains in security and possibly economy, if everything worked out well with the EU central government.  Also, if we let Mexico join the Union they would no longer be neighbors, and even right now I wouldn't consider them especially good neighbors.

If Turkey is admitted to the EU, as many in Holland and France fear, there could be a real threat to Western Europe's security, culture and political freedom, much in the same way that admitting Mexico to the Union would only exacerbate the welfare state here.

[DavidOdden]

much in the same way that admitting Mexico to the Union would only exacerbate the welfare state here.

Is that because you think Mexicans are intrinsically lazy welfare bums just looking for a handout? Apart from the fact that Mexico has no interest in being a state of the US, the only argument against admitting Mexico to the union is that it would drive up the price of labor, since it would eliminate a major source of off-the-books laborers who simply want to work for a living, and are willing to accept lower wages given that they can't use government-assisted coercion to demand higher wages.

[LaVache]

Is that because you think Mexicans are intrinsically lazy welfare bums just looking for a handout? Apart from the fact that Mexico has no interest in being a state of the US, the only argument against admitting Mexico to the union is that it would drive up the price of labor, since it would eliminate a major source of off-the-books laborers who simply want to work for a living, and are willing to accept lower wages given that they can't use government-assisted coercion to demand higher wages.

I don't think that he was implying laziness at all. It's just that the quality of life in Mexico is much lower than it is in the US, and there economy is not as strong as ours, that if they became a state all of the sudden then the government would no doubt try to "relieve" some of their suffering. It would take a considerable amount of time for Mexico to be brought up to speed, so to speak.

I also wouldn't shed any tears because people that are here illegally get lower wages than say people who take the time to, or show the proper respect to the US's sovereignty by immigrating legally.

[DavidOdden]

I also wouldn't shed any tears because people that are here illegally get lower wages than say people who take the time to, or show the proper respect to the US's sovereignty by immigrating legally.

Well, I don't shed any tears for them at all. However, they have the right to come here and take any job they can convince an employer to give them, despite our idiotic socialist immigration policy. There is no issue of US sovereignty at all: the issue is whether men should be allowed to engage in free trade.

[Eric Mathis]

Is that because you think Mexicans are intrinsically lazy welfare bums just looking for a handout? Apart from the fact that Mexico has no interest in being a state of the US, the only argument against admitting Mexico to the union is that it would drive up the price of labor, since it would eliminate a major source of off-the-books laborers who simply want to work for a living, and are willing to accept lower wages given that they can't use government-assisted coercion to demand higher wages.

Oh, come on. Mexicans are not intrinsically anything but human. The argument against admitting Mexico to the Union is based not on prejudice but on two inescapable facts 1) the U.S. is a welfare state that uses the threat of force to transfer property from the “haves” to the “have-nots,” and 2) the income level of the average Mexican is far below that of the average U.S. citizen; the GDP per capita is roughly one-fourth ( http://www.mrdowling.com/800gdppercapita.html ).

It does not require much calculation to see that adding tens of millions of recipients to federal and state welfare/medical/educational rolls would place even greater strains on the portion of the U.S. population that produces more than it receives in government benefits.

It is simply not in the rational self-interest of net tax producers to be made responsible for the care and feeding of even more “disadvantaged” souls.

Well, I don't shed any tears for them at all. However, they have the right to come here and take any job they can convince an employer to give them, despite our idiotic socialist immigration policy. There is no issue of US sovereignty at all: the issue is whether men should be allowed to engage in free trade.

James R. Edwards has pointed out, “As for participation in any welfare program, 19.7 percent of immigrants are on welfare, while just 13.3 percent of native-born are recipients.” ( http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back701.html )

So are we supposed to believe that once tens of millions of Mexican low-wage workers have come here to find jobs and become part of the electorate, voting for more taxes on the rich and more benefits for the poor will be the furthest thing from their minds? If Mexicans constitute such good potential coverts to the laissez faire philosophy, why is that that today there is no party or political leader in Mexico that is calling for reduced government there?

As Milton Friedman said, “As long as you have a welfare state, I do not believe you can have a unilateral open immigration. I would like to see a world in which you could have open immigration, but stop kidding yourselves.”

Edited June 6, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[DavidOdden]

1) the U.S. is a welfare state that uses the threat of force to transfer property from the “haves” to the “have-nots,” and 2) the income level of the average Mexican is far below that of the average U.S. citizen; the GDP per capita is roughly one-fourth).

The former argument also weighs against admitting Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii to the union (though the cat is out of the bag in those three states); the latter is valid if you assume that Mexicans are lazy, but if you don't make that assumption then I don't see how it is relevant. Why, concretely, do you believe that the Mexicans economy would not improve dramatically once it was admitted to the union? I'm just trying to figure out what explanation you have for the lower wages in Mexico? If you reject the laziness theory, then there has to be some explanation for the lower per capita. If it's caused by the governmental policies of Mexico, then suppose Mexico were eliminated as a country -- don't you think that once you remove the cause of poverty, that the poverty will go away? Or does god hate Mexicans so he made them poor? I'm just looking for a cause.

[Eric Mathis]

The former argument also weighs against admitting Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii to the union (though the cat is out of the bag in those three states);

If expelling net tax-consuming states would lessen the tax bite on net tax-producing citizens, I’m all in favor.

the latter is valid if you assume that Mexicans are lazy, but if you don't make that assumption then I don't see how it  is relevant.

It is relevant for the reason I stated earlier: widespread poverty among Mexico’s citizens would, under unification, immediately qualify tens of millions of new U.S. citizens for welfare benefits, further straining the burden on those U.S. citizens who are the milk cows of wealth redistribution.

Why, concretely, do you believe that the Mexicans economy would not improve dramatically once it was admitted to the union? I'm just trying to figure out what explanation you have for the lower wages in Mexico? If you reject the laziness theory, then there has to be some explanation for the lower per capita.

Econ 101. Supply and demand. Skilled labor commands higher wages than unskilled labor. A large part of Mexico’s population is unskilled. The adult educational level of Mexicans is roughly half that of U.S. citizens. ( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_av...a_of_sch_of_adu )You might have noticed that those immigrants being smuggled across our southern border seldom include physicians, pharmacists, astronomers, geologists and financial managers.

If it's caused by the governmental policies of Mexico, then suppose Mexico were eliminated as a country -- don't you think that once you remove the cause of poverty, that the poverty will go away? Or does god hate Mexicans so he made them poor? I'm just looking for a cause.

No country can be changed culturally and intellectually overnight. Objectivists seem to grasp this point better than most people.

[scottkursk]

If it's caused by the governmental policies of Mexico, then suppose Mexico were eliminated as a country -- don't you think that once you remove the cause of poverty, that the poverty will go away? Or does god hate Mexicans so he made them poor? I'm just looking for a cause.

Bingo. The government enforces monopolies on just about everything, down to and including law enformcement. You have to pay to be top cops. Needless to say, that breeds a sort of corruption like nodody in the US can imagine. Oil and beer are the pretty much the same story, so yes, making them a state and doing enforcing American laws would indeed change the place greatly. But that's why you wouldn't see it happen.

Sure their people are oppressed and are kept down and by blowing their families life savings to come north risking life and limb to work a job nobody here would want to work, living in neighborhoods etc.... and they consider it an improvement. I grew up in Pasadena, Tx where about 30-50% of the population was from El Salvador or various central American countries.

Quite a few of our friends openend small businesses here because it was so easy to do and become successful at it; and they weren't even legally here until the amnesty programs in 86/87.

As for God hating them, I doubt it. Since they are the latest group to make a major influx into America, they are the ones to hate. As every ethnic group comes in, they are hated. Italians were shifty and thieves, Irish were lazy drunks, Chinese were stuppid drug addicts, etc. I figured given the the large percentage and influence Hispanic culture has on the US now, the hatred will turn to the newest large immigrant group. I'm guessing we've taken our love of poker from Europe so we should inherit their distrust of I'm guessing Arabic or East Asain immigrants next.

[Hal]

The former argument also weighs against admitting Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii to the union (though the cat is out of the bag in those three states); the latter is valid if you assume that Mexicans are lazy, but if you don't make that assumption then I don't see how it  is relevant. Why, concretely, do you believe that the Mexicans economy would not improve dramatically once it was admitted to the union? I'm just trying to figure out what explanation you have for the lower wages in Mexico? If you reject the laziness theory, then there has to be some explanation for the lower per capita. If it's caused by the governmental policies of Mexico, then suppose Mexico were eliminated as a country -- don't you think that once you remove the cause of poverty, that the poverty will go away? Or does god hate Mexicans so he made them poor? I'm just looking for a cause.

Although Mexico would probably improve after admission to the union, this would surely take a significant amount of time (several decades). However the financial hit caused by the extra drain on the welfare state would likely be both immediate and significant.

[scottkursk]

Although Mexico would probably improve after admission to the union, this would surely take a significant amount of time (several decades). However the financial hit caused by the extra drain on the welfare state would likely be both immediate and significant.

Agree with you there Hal. The positive effects would be resounding on Mexican society as would the changes on Canadian society if Alvin Toffler would have been right when he predicted in the 80's (talk about egg on the face) that the cessation of Quebec would lead to a dissolution of Canada and their inclusion as US States. Of course, their would be an even greater short term negative effect on the current 50.

Kind of like when a good company takes over a bankrupt company with horrible management and labor relations for the sake of a single product line and suck it up for years in order for the big payoff.

Sometimes it works, sometimes you go bankrupt and end up in civil war.